The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Dealing With Terrorist States (Iran Hostage Thread)
Posts
Yeah, but who knows.
Cruise missile war, I believe.
I know that during the Lebanon/Isreal War, there was talk from DoD civilians and the Air Force of bombing Iran. Apparently the other services lost their minds, with a Marine general throwing a folder at another general and telling him "its not your boys out there who are going to die when your plan fucks up again".
I don't think there are any boots left to put on the ground.
What's more insane? Disbelieving someone who has been proven to lie to you or giving them the benefit of the doubt? There is absolutely no reason to believe that the British government is somehow more trustworthy than the government of Iran.
Except for the fact that in this specific case, the Iranians published the coordinates showing they were not in Iranian waters.
If it weren't for that, your logic might have a case.
Also, they have been claiming that these were spies... which makes almost no sense to me.
Given that there is no official border there, it's possible that the Iranian government decided to change their
coordinates to fit in line with what westerners were saying about the position of the border.
The fact that I'm more inclined to believe the Iranian government than the British government says more about the quality of the British Government than it does about me.
I like how you just said "they lied about this specific case, but I believe them."
No. No it doesn't.
I'm more likely to believe the claim of the guy who doesn't have a history of lying to me as opposed to the guy who does. The only evidence I have of Iran lying to me comes from the British Government - who has lied to me in the past.
Oh yeah, I remember reading about that during the war in Lebanon. Air Power! We're gonna bomb them into submission, and this time, it's gonna work. You just watch.
It may sound crazy, but countries occasionally stage diplomatic incidents for reasons other than the obvious- in this case, it seems clear that Iran has two goals.
1. Saber rattling, probably for domestic consumption.
2. Force negotiations over the hostage's release with the British, and in the process quietly rebuild the diplomatic back channel they had lost after the "Axis of Evil" speech. The Iranians had approached the British as middle-men to talk with the US after 9/11, but the Axis Of Evil speech derailed that and forced Iran into a more belligerent stance. Taking the hostages is a face-saving way of reopening talks. They negotiate for the hostages, secretly setting a date and time for more meaningful negotiations later.
It depends on how subtle the Bush/Blair response is. If they rattle their sabers too forcefully, Iran can't back down without losing face. If both sides keep cool enough to preseve their dignity, then relations in the future can improve, Kissinger/Zhou En Lai style. If not...boom.
It's important to remember that Iran is not Afghanistan. The country is significantly better off, freedom-wise, than we tend to think- 60% of Iran's university students are women, the country is fairly well educated, there's an info-savvy and large reform movement with access to western culture and media. The government is even semi-democratic- Ahmaninejad was elected, after all. Iran's foreign policy has always been pretty rational.
The "Mad Mullah" rhetoric from the far right in Britain and the US wildly exaggerates how things are in Iran; all evidence indicates the country is a rational actor that occasionally adopts an irrational hate to appeal to various fundamentalist political bases in its domestic arena. Holocaust Denial Forum- who do you think that is for? It's no different than Bush going against Gay Marriage or Hillary adopting populist stances against video games- it's to appeal to an irrational political base. Superficial stuff like that is meaningless in international relations. The real stuff goes on behind the scenes.
Alternatively, it's just a mistake on the Iranian's part, and they can't just back down without losing face, so it'll depend on the Bush/Blair response on how this goes down. If they take it as an excuse to drump up a cassus belli, we have war. If they recognize that the Iranians are probably pretty embarrassed and what the whole thing to go away without making them look like chumps, they'll toss 'em a concession or two.
you do know coordinates and positions are based on an absolute system, not a relative system, so if they changed it to 'fit in line', that means the new ones are probably lies?
Much, much stranger things have happened, though. But yes, it is a bit of a stretch- but I do think there is more going on here than what the "official" statements indicate. Virtually every "diplomatic incident" in history had concealed "real reasons" for it behind-the-scenes, usually deliberate, complicated, interconnected crazyness. Excepting the ones that came from genuine fuckups, of course.
Unless the Iranians just sincerely screwed something up, then they have to have a reason for it, and that reason is probably rational. Those might include...
1. Face-saving diplomatic overture, as above.
2. Saber rattling for domestic consumption. The hardliners in Iran are having less traction with the "US is going to invade us!" argument and the reformers have been slowly regaining strength recently. Kind of like the various Taiwan Straits Crises, this kicks things up a notch and reminds people they have an external enemy.
3. Saber rattling for international consumption- they might be looking to see which of the other countries in the area declare for them or not. Even if they publicly condemn hostage taking, the language of those condemnations and private communications that follow will give them insight into their regional standing.
4. Combination of any or all of the above.
I guess we won't know until historians get into the document archives, if any survive.
Or they could be mistakes, like typos, myabe. Just like the mistake of saying,"We know where the weapons are..."
I'm still left with Blair on one hand and Ahmedinejad on the other. One lies to me and the other says "Destroy Israel".
it's pretty hard to mistake numbers espescially with how many hands have it has to go through.
You know what's most likely? the first numbers were correct, and iran considers their border to be extended farther than the rest of the world. The first, correct, numbers were inside this border, so they got released and nobody noticed.
Afterwards, when Iran was notified that these coordinates are in iraqi waters, Iran didn't fess up to their mistake (which would be embarassing both abroad and at home), they gave out 'corrected' numbers.
This makes alot of sense to me.
edit: Also, keep in mind it's not Blair lieing to you. It's a ton of people involved with the government, including a large amount of bureacracy which does not change between governments. To feel that your gov't is purposefully lieing to you about this stuff when the facts say otherwise is to feel that your entire system is kinda... corrupt. Not blair.
I like how you just said "they lied about this specific case, but I believe them."
Gorak, grow a pair and stop with the defeatism. Your service people were kidnapped and are forced to say/write things against their will. Just because you hate your current government doesn't mean you should hate your countrymen.
Actually, I said Brit gov has lied to me in the past so I'm less likely to believe them when they say, the other guys are lying. It's not that complicated
When a western government gets something wrong we're supposd to assume incompetence but with other governments I'm supposed to assume malice?
Where did I say I hate my countrymen?
I'm not saying it's complicated. I'm saying it's retarded.
Are they really planning on charging these people with espionage or something?
I would assume this would warrant a death penalty there.
I don't think they are thinking very far ahead as this was quite clearly a no-win situation for them from the get-go. Let's see. Put these hostages though a trial, resulting in either a lengthy prison sentence or death penalty (why bother putting them on trial unless you know they are guilty by your laws already). Either outcome brings the wrath of the UK (and eventually the US). Or finally admit you were wrong and release the hostages while George W. Bush thumbs his nose at you with a "see, we told you the Iranians were full of shit" grin.
The continual release of bullshit propaganda detailing the detainees "apologies" is making me afraid that the Iranians are flirting with the first option.
No. They're planning on making Blair/Bush lose face in getting them released. It's an attempted diplomatic bitch slap, nothing more.
That they continue to dig the hole deeper is what worries me.
Well, I should have said their strategy "was" to make them lose face. Now they seem to have screwed the pooch entirely. They can't back down without losing face, they can't win because they're in the wrong...it is a recipe for disaster.
Yes, but that's still a damn sight better than the Taliban. I was really only trying to forestall the myth that Iran is this rubble-and-hut benighted country of revolutionary fervor, instead of the more modern place it really is. There's plenty of hope for Iran to reform, fully democratize, etc, in the future...if it lasts that long. The Iranian government is stable, manages transitions-of-power...it's not a dictatorship in the Hussein sense. Political stability, in the current world climate, tends to lead towards reform, democracy, economic liberalization, etc, over time.
I'm certainly not saying I'd fancy living in Tehran.
Nah, I think the fact that the reform movement was (and is) gaining ground in popular support and political power speaks otherwise.
It's more like the post-Khruschev Soviet Union than a simple dictatorship- there is a mechanism of power transfer. I'm not saying it is good, but I am saying there is room for Gorbachev.
Really, the USMC is that stupid? They were in Rigid Inflatable Boats, with only small arms and at a vulnerable point in the operation. Our Marines and Navy personnel aren't cowards but they certainly aren't stupid enough to fight against overwhelming odds.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1582544.ece
Gorak's...blind hatred of the British government seems to make him blissfuly unaware that there are other people in the world who are full of shit and not very nice.
As for how American forces would have handled the situation, it looks like they had something similar happen awhile back but were able to fight off the Iranians long enough to escape: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html
Edit: this does remind me, there was an Iranian source a month or two back talking about how pissed they were that their guys were taken captive in Iraq and elsewhere, and that they were considering upping the hostage ante. Remember that some of their higher ups recently defected or were captured by westerners, I believe including a founding member of Hezbollah. I guess this is the result of that.
You seem to be unaware of how bad the odds were. If the British fought back they would have died. There is no question about that. I really really doubt any American troops in the same situation would have been as blitheringly stupid as to open fire.
I'm not saying that the Brits should have fought back. I'm just saying that there has been an instance where American forces did fight back when Iranians were trying to catch them. I find it surprising that this has been declassified this soon.
I didn't say I hate the system, just the guys currently holding the reigns - and it's not blind, it's based on ten years of bullshit.
I'm fully aware that the world is full of assholes. Thing is, I've seen more assholery from Blair than from Iran and every charge I hear levelled at Iran could equally be levelled at Bush or Blair. The only evidence I've seen so far was a map presented by the MoD that I could knock up with PS in about 5 mins. There was also a shot of a GPS unit from out the side of a helicopter.
My point is; none of that matters when the very position of the border is disputed. The ship they stopped was so close to where Britain is drawing the border that the Iranians may well have believed that the ship was in their waters. In which case, they would be well within their rights to detain the sailors and marines.
Admittedly I was drunk last night so I may not have phrased that quite as eloquently.
So after reading this, am I to assume you didn't actually stop drinking?
Because, to say Iran hasn't out-assholed pretty much everyone, seems like the rambling of a drunkard.
With regard to the border dispute, I'd respond, but no one else has been able to convince you to read and/or understand their posts that fully explain things, so I'm not sure what I could do that would be different.
At any rate, how long do the Brits and the UN let Iran go on with this before serious action is taken? What kind of embargos could be put in place that will force them to capitulate? I'm afraid this may become an issue that will force a naval blockade, which I think would lead to some skirmishes, that would eventually lead to a wider conflict.